Can't be proven...

[lucaspa]

Sorry to hear about your friends letter grade. I ran across a few professors like that in undergrad...does not mean things cannot be proved, however, it means I was going about explaining my data in the wrong manner. I was irritated at first but ithey made my lab skills, as well as, my report writing skills much better. I was able to prove in one of my more memorable experiements that the enzyme peroxidase, was able to split potentially harmful (to optimum cellular conditions), Hydrogen Peroxide, into its harmless components. I was able to prove that through a series of experiments. If I was not able to correctly express that data in my report than, no, I would not have been able to prove this to be true.

You still didn't "prove". Yes, I am one of those few professors! What you did with the controls was falsify all the alternative hypotheses you or the prof could think of.

You can't ever "prove" using the deductive logic of science.

 

[Mike Flynn]

After reading through this thread here are a couple of thoughts:

As I science teacher I find that too often, people get stuck in the philisophical quagmire of 'proof'. The arguments are often circular, since even our own sense of reality can be called into question and defies unequivocal 'proof'. This gives rise to the (postmodern) notion that you can discard all things intellectual, since there can be no ultimate proof of anything. I would argue that the study of science has very little to do with this kind of proof.

I have come to understand that studying science is akin to reading lines of a poem. Each new line tells us something about the character of existence. Quantum physics is a prime example. Its not about 'proof'. Its a painstaking mathematical formulation detailing how the microscopic world works. Each new discovery reveals more about the character of the universe. We poke and prod the microscopic world, and carefully observe how it responds, then we formulate the theory. But its really the universe itself that is responsible for the quantum...not us. So as we discover more and more about the character of the universe, it transforms our thinking and empowers us to do more and more with the knowledge that we derive from it.

The same can be said of a spiritual journey with Christ. Many truths can be revealed to people who engage in this journey. Profound, life-giving truths that defy philosophical proof. But if we agree to walk along in this journey, then God reveals Himself (in some way) to those who would accept Him...and this transforms us spiritually.

... this can be equally directed at either evolution or christians (and doubly at theistic evolutionists).

I agree completely. Except for a theistic scientist like myself...keen on discovering the nature of the universe and walking with Christ; I see it as being doubly blessed.

 

[Mike Flynn]

lucaspa...I love the quotes in your signature BTW.

 

[LorentzHA]

The original problem was that Aceldama's claim was too broad. Some things are proven by science. But all these are the negative statements. IOW, the falsified hypotheses:

The earth is not flat.
The sun is not the center of the solar system.
Proteins are not the hereditary material.
Etc.

The positive statements are not "proved". Round earth is not proved. Instead, all current alternatives to round earth have been falsified. However, it is barely possible that some day we will think of or find a shape that describes the shape of the earth better. That's why science is tentative.

Aceldama is correct that the evidence today is so overwhelming that we provisionally accept as true that the earth is round. And we then use that provisional truth to make more detailed explanations, such as plane schedules and satellite orbits. That the planes and satellites are where they are calculated to be provide more support for the theory that the earth is round.

Now, when we "prove" something by science, that is verbal shorthand for:
"We have falsified all the alternative hypotheses that we can think of."

So, if you look at an x-ray that shows a femur fracture, you say you have "proved" the bone is broken because there is no alternative hypothesis except a broken femur that would produce that x-ray. All the alternative hypotheses have long ago been falsified.

Understand?

My mindset is different then this, I take certain things as "proof". Sorry, I am not good with Philisophical implications of science.

Yes, I understand "round" is term for lack of anything better to say since the Earth is "fatter" at the middle (equator) there appears to be a bulge, agreed. Are the pictures from Earth (from space) not "proof" that it is not a flat Earth? (curious about this)

Yes, as you know, the femur analogy you make is a good one, that is how medicine works by not what it is but by what we know it is not....

What about specific tests we use to pin point certain pathology? Can we not say we can "prove" some had "mono nucleosis" or "prove" someone does not have cancer? (Bear with me here, trying to understand this in terms of what I know)

 

[foolsparade]

nice pictures John, who is the girl? a friend of yours?

 

[LorentzHA]

You still didn't "prove". Yes, I am one of those few professors! What you did with the controls was falsify all the alternative hypotheses you or the prof could think of.

You can't ever "prove" using the deductive logic of science.

I am sure you are one of those few- I have no doubt about that!
See, in my mind I "proved" this by ruling out alternatives. As we have talked in the past, my education on the scientific method is different from what it "really" is, as well. Yes, I understand what you are saying..I use "proof" qute a bit in my vocabulary though...

 

[lucaspa]

My mindset is different then this, I take certain things as "proof". Sorry, I am not good with Philisophical implications of science.

It will help with your medical career if you get better. For instance, 90% of morbidities I see result from failure to consider an alternative hypothesis.

Yes, I understand "round" is term for lack of anything better to say since the Earth is "fatter" at the middle (equator) there appears to be a bulge, agreed. Are the pictures from Earth (from space) not "proof" that it is not a flat Earth? (curious about this)

The pictures are proof that the earth is not flat. That is, they positively, absolutely falsify that the earth is flat. But, not playing semantic games over round vs oblate spheroid, the pictures do not prove that the earth is round. They provide very strong positive support for that theory, but you simply can't prove it. As I said, it is barely possible that sometime in the future we will find a hypothesis that fits the shape of the earth better than "round".

What about specific tests we use to pin point certain pathology? Can we not say we can "prove" some had "mono nucleosis" or "prove" someone does not have cancer? (Bear with me here, trying to understand this in terms of what I know)

You can prove that someone does not have cancer. That is falsification of the hypothesis that the person does have cancer. However, you cannot prove that someone has mono. Strictly speaking. What you have done is falsify all the other hypotheses of what the person does have.

Again, what happens here is that the supporting evidence for mono is so strong that you provisionally accept the diagnosis of mono as true. Then go on to treat it. That the treatment works then becomes another test and support that the diagnosis was indeed true.

Let's try a simpler example. Gravity. Theory: all rocks will drop when held above the earth and released. Now, the problem is that, no matter how many rocks you drop, there are always an infinite number of rocks yet to drop. And perhaps one of them will not drop. When that happens the theory gets falsified. No matter how much support it has. Each rock becomes a test of the theory.

The reason you use deductive logic, with the limitations, is that it is the only form of logic that lets you make conclusions wider than the examples you use. If you use inductive logic and simply look at a bunch of rocks that you dropped, you can't make any statements about rocks you haven't dropped. You can say the rocks you dropped did fall. But only those rocks. Deductive logic lets you make statement about all rocks, whether you have dropped them or not.

 

[lucaspa]

See, in my mind I "proved" this by ruling out alternatives. As we have talked in the past, my education on the scientific method is different from what it "really" is, as well. Yes, I understand what you are saying..I use "proof" qute a bit in my vocabulary though...

1. I suggest you stop using "proof". Instead, I suggest you start using "support". "This data supports my hypothesis."

2. If you do use proof, at least be clear in your mind what it is shorthand for. Don't fall into the trap that you really have proved something you haven't.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa...I love the quotes in your signature BTW.

Thank you. They do rather cut the "evolution is atheism" claim off at the knees, don't they?

 

[LorentzHA]

1. I suggest you stop using "proof". Instead, I suggest you start using "support". "This data supports my hypothesis."

2. If you do use proof, at least be clear in your mind what it is shorthand for. Don't fall into the trap that you really have proved something you haven't.

Yes, supports is is better . As for the post a couple/few up from this one, of course other hypothesis are considered! I do not know anyone who tests for one thing and runs with it, do you? I hope not. You have to have some sort of certainty when dealing with patients and project that, is that not correct? I would hate to tell a patient, "We have a hypothesis you have cancer and have falsified other hypothesis." To me this does not project confidence. I am giving a hyperbolic example, but I think yo uknow what I am driving at.

Take my own health, for example: applying it to this situation. They did an ultra-sound scan, told me it was "definately" my gall bladder. How could they be "definate", based on nothing can be "proven"? In this/my case they did not test for anything else-that is how sure they were.